Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Jul 24, 2014.
I never liked this old liberal but this is a good one...
You could just as easily means test benefits. That's kind of the point, there's a limit to how much you can put in but the more you put in the more you get out. Just adding to the tax isn't fully sufficient, you also need to change the formula and, to some extent, the intent of social security. I'm not saying that's a bad thing just that social security wasn't intended to be welfare for the elderly; it was more to be a safe insurance policy on aging. It can easily be made solvent, it's not really a big deal but I'd prefer to make it smaller and means test rather than make it bigger and increase taxes.
How about we set up a Communist state and everyone will have everything they need just like they do in other Communist countries!!!
Or.....how about allowing people to invest their own retirement money so they can be responsible for themselves rather than having to rely on government?
This isn't what SS was sold as. There's a cap on paying in, because there is a cap on what you can get out. I hate the use of a CEO as the bad guy, to win over the lobotomized vote. Basically what this would do, is make SS a giant, redistributive welfare program, where lots of people pay in, so that other people can benefit. It would serve as a wealth transfer program. Soon, when the cap, or the means test in place isn't enough, the standards will change, where more people pay in so that more welfare recipients can get bennies. What people have to realize, is that your retirement is ultimately your own problem.
Basically forcing people to pay for government mismanagement
gotta love bernie.......im not sure how i feel on this......healthcare costs are what really scare me, going forward
I love how they omit that the cap exists because there's a limit on what you can get out. Play to the low information voters.
Blah blah blah. They changed it in the 80s so that 68 is the new 65. They have changed it other ways. Here is one proposed change.
I think it's a good idea as long as the additional revenue is used to fund the retirement aspect of SS and not the disability part of it. As long as 100% of the money is used for SS and doesn't go into the general fund. Stop with the IOU's....I hope that's part of Sanders proposal too.
I honestly believe Bernie Sanders is a pure socialist and can't stand the guy....but this one isn't a bad idea. I've been saying this for years.
And we should also not pay out any SS retirement to people that have millions saved up. But I can live with the way it is.
Why not just be honest about it and just raise the income tax? FICA taxes are premiums. You are raising premiums by 42,000% on that CEO with no change in benefits.
Income tax doesn't pay for Social Security, but it does pay for a very large chunk of medicare (which is also under SSA.)
Do you want to raise the income tax, B5?
Or do you suggest that Sanders try, and fail, to raise the income tax - so that nobody's ever taxed anything, and 20 year down the line we all cry and gnash our teeth and take similar ineffective actions, when we end up with cardboard slum cities like Rio de Janeiro has?
What does this even mean? Do you think we own houses because the government created them?
I don't understand how people think it's morally acceptable to just steal someone else's money because you want it. I also find it hypocritical. You I and most Americans are fabulously wealthy with luxuries many in the world can't imagine that go far beyond survival needs. But somehow we exempt ourselves from such responsibility even though in a curve that includes the world most of us are 1%ers.
Bob, it sort of sounds to me that any help our nation has given you is not a handout, but any help our nation gives to others is a handout. Also, what you call stealing, I call the natural course of a nation where the people have good values. If our system reflects our values, it's only natural to expect us to want to help the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, the working poor, the single parents, and so on. We express our values through our political system. What I find hard to understand is what do you get out of being a lackey to the 1%s interests? How does that help you? From what philosophical or religious system is your morality derived, because it seems to be solely based on money.
Its the difference between giving and taking. It's natural to want to give, which is completely separate from forcefully taking others money. I find nothing charitable about volunteering to give to others from other people's money. There's also the fact that it's economically harmful, and such plans stifle innovation, jobs creation, and the creation of wealth. We didn't become the wealthiest nation in the world, increasing the standard of living from the poorest to the richest by passing dollars back and forth to each other, that creates no wealth.
It's more than just expressing our values. If that's truly the threshold of deciding law then there's no reason a majority couldn't force you to not work on Sunday because they believe it's wrong, force women to wear a Burqua. Our political system rejects (or it used to) the idea of forcing values on others through a majority. Values are pretty subjective.
I don't represent 1%ers, I find it immoral for a majority to attack a minority simply because they have the power of voting numbers. Without principles there's no reason the majority couldn't decide to take anything you or I have by force when they decide to vote it away. The rich get rich by providing something we voluntarily value. Effectively we are buying something from them because we think it's worth the money, then after the transaction turning around, pointing a gun at them and saying "Now give me my money back". We don't accept that sort of immoral behavior from anyone else, or to anyone else but because people unjustly hate the rich we think ourselves justified.
I find the rich actually give quite a lot to charity, far more percentage wise than most. By now we've even dropped the pretense that it's moral to take to provide for those in need, or help people survive. We speak in terms now just of income inequality. Which is to say, we don't even need to take, we just want to. I hope the rich give plenty, but I believe in persuasion with words not force.
We should speak about laws truthfully, we hide the nature of our willingness to be violent by using platitudes. "I believe in helping people." Is actually "I believe we should put people in jail if they don't give another $2000 a month to the IRS." I believe E-cigs should be banned is actually "I believe if someone uses an E-cig they should go to jail." Doesn't have that altruistic ring when we speak about it honestly.
I would argue it's the opposite Patters. If my moral system were based on money than I would have no issue taking money whenever I had the power to do so. The 1%ers are outnumbered 99-1, I could join forces with you and we could easily collect the loot with such a majority.
I think people have become far to comfortable with forcing others through law, which should be more of a last resort, and at the same time asking very little of ourselves.
Bob, you're comparing the world as it is to a dream world, where there is no government. Your dream is realized in some places, where there is a vacuum of government. Since the rule of law is a function of the much-reviled institution of government, places without effective government, such as Somalia, often devolve into precisely what you espouse, anarchy.
However your emotional description of government as compulsion, taxation as theft, etc., is still realized in such settings. All of the negative features still pertain, but with no programs for the benefit of the governed, and, importantly, no consent of the governed.
In America, although some are trying very hard to erase it, we have consent of the governed. We have a representative democracy. At least when it's working right, all adults have the right to their say, through the ballot, in the activities in which the government engages, with all the tax money that the government collects.
So putting on the brakes and saying "hold on all tax is theft!" is a bit of a diversion in a discussion of public policy.
We have highly popular programs such as Social Security and Medicare, both of which are funded by mechanisms set up by the government. One of the two above-named programs, Medicare, is in a lot of trouble. The other, Social Security, needs tweaks.
This is a discussion of one proposal to simply take the Social Security tweaks off the table for the foreseeable future.
If you want to discuss the morality or immorality of having a government at all, go make a thread on it. I'll leave it to you whether to place it in the political forum or the religious forum.
So a family say a small business is making 500,000 per year they are doing quite well, but they are in the 40% fed tax bracket, not instead of playing ~^16,000 for FICA taxes bernis proposed raising that to ~$75,000 about 60k more. Then if they live in certain states (Cali, Ny NJ) their state taxes are 10% ~45,000 and Fed Taxes are ~$38%, we'll assume say 60K in deductions got ~$165,000 Fed Income tax, then we have ~4% for medicare, another $20,000 not to mention prop tax, sales tax ect ect
Yeah it is read fair to impose a additional 60k in tax on people already paying ~230k in taxes now their tax bill is in the 270 to 300 k area.
Yeah taking almost 60% from a hard working to satisfy the socialist machine is just great.
Their burden will go up an additional 12% in the name of fairness.
If I read you right, 13, you're stipulating that he is both employer and employee in this scenario, which is why you say he would pay 75K on an income of 500,000.
You also make no provision for him to use any of the thousands of loopholes available to him in the tax code.
He does not write off business expenses. He does not have tax-deferred savings. He does not contribute to one or more college fund for his kids. He ignores both the home mortgage deduction on his home, and a home mortgage deduction on a whole nother home. He does not write off his insurance costs or the cost of his office or equipment.
Strikingly, cases such as you concocted above are not the norm in real life, and any doctor who does not take his tax deductions - like most other people in the middle and upper classes - would soon find himself out of business.
Now, it's important to realize that your complaint about the doctor paying this percentage of his income to FICA already pertains to people earning less than about $120K a year if they have small businesses.
So what, you like it for working stiffs, but don't like it for a guy making a half million a year?
The self employed pay both the employee and employer portions perhaps you have never been self employed.
My point how much is enough? 50%, 60% 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%?
I don't premise my life on being envious of those with more $$$ than me ymmv.
Really, Bob? Where did you find that?
Because I've found the direct opposite.
Separate names with a comma.